AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › AVR Sound Comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AVR Sound Comparison - Page 4

post #91 of 168
5/5/10 at 12:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

Absolutely. Because no statistics, and no DBT can tell you what YOU hear. Audio is very subjective. I think that was mentioned once or twice in this thread already.

And prepare to be surprised when what you hear with the same receiver in your room is not what you hear in the show room. Going the subjective route, rejecting scientific knowledge, and you'll never have a baseline to judge equipments.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #92 of 168
5/5/10 at 5:59am
Quote:


It's the speakers that make the difference.

Among other things. Spend more time choosing speakers and treating the listening space, and less time worrying about the differences between modern amplifiers operating within their tolerances. Even if we accept that receivers have a "sound" and that differences exist, the differences are trumped by differences in speakers, in the topology/geometry of our listening spaces and in differences among our central nervous systems (including expectations and biases).
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 168
5/5/10 at 6:51am
measuring tools are only there to act as a guide at the end of the day it is what you hear that will ultimately decides the final outcome on how you setup within the avr ..

If you always went scientific data you would be basing your layout in a circle (at best) or oblong (at worst) shaped room instead of living in the real world where we use square or rectangle shaped rooms to put ht or commercial theatres in too.. making what-ever they use to formulate a layout plan practically useless.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 168
5/5/10 at 6:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjean View Post

I have read a lot of reviews and have heard the above terms frequently to describe a receivers sound. Why is that the case, if receivers are not discernible?

I also have heard from several sources that Klipsch set up there studios and provide only Yamaha receivers to audition their speakers. Why?

Not sure who's argument I am supporting here, just asking a valid question.

Depending on the speakers, in the case you pointed out (Klipsch) when you went to listen in the showroom were all the AVR's connected and calibrated to those same speakers? If not and I don't know, but I doubt it then yes you would be able to notice a difference, possibly a major difference. That's why in my post I stated that the only way to get what you want is to bring one home and connect with your speakers, then see if you do notice that big difference. Push 'em to the levels you like to listen with without causing distortion and see what each of those things will do. All of the AVR's you listened to are good choices, but you will not be able to find the "right" one for you until you bring it home, set it up correctly, and put all of them through their paces. Yes, your speakers will make the biggest difference, along with your room. I think you may find they sound closer together than you think if all of them are setup properly. The biggest difference between your choices will be the EQ programs they use. Audyssey,MCACC and YPAO are all different. Pick the one that sounds the best to you, with your speakers(not theirs) and its the keeper. This banter back and forth about the difference in sounds is only confusing a lot of members here and as I stated earlier would turn into a pi**ing match. All of choices IIRC have pre-outs and if they don't provide the power to your like add an amp later and then listen for any improvements. An Emotiva XPA3 is all you really need for the fronts and the AVR can do surround duty. Do this for yourself and if you do indeed hear a drastic difference between them you'll know the one you like best. Good luck and enjoy the hunt, hell it's half the fun of this crazy hobby.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 168
5/5/10 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

Absolutely. Because no statistics, and no DBT can tell you what YOU hear. Audio is very subjective. I think that was mentioned once or twice in this thread already.

Building and accurate audio setup is not subjective at all. Most audio companies WANT YOU to BELIEVE its subjective because that is the only way products can be sold.

You (and others) keep posting "What you hear" but will you agree that most people have no idea how to listen, have little knowledge about controlled listening and simply make the wrong conclusions about what they heard on a regular basis?

Honestly if anyone wants to just accept what they hear in uncontrolled listening tests then just go do it, there is no need to participate in any audio science discussions. These threads exist because of the simple fact that there is more to audio then bad listening experiences!
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 168
5/5/10 at 7:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post


And with that statement you are invalidating all these DBT if the participants are indeed "guessing". I would certainly presume that there would be 2 possible choices in a DBT; difference, no difference. ANd what motive do people have to say there is a difference when in fact (as you claim) there is none?

That would be an inaccurate conclusion. Have you ever done a DBT? If you have not then I think you really do not have an opinion about it at this time.

I would suggest doing them first before you jump too so many conclusions. You seem to have an agenda of pushing the idea of just listening without controlling anything. You do not believe in Bias, placebo type conclusions? What is your goal here anyways? What does anyone gain from your opinion? everyone already knows that they can listen, nothing can be taught by posting that so why bother posting it over and over? I would think the goal is to broaden audio knowledge post something new for people to learn.

Quote:


Again, sound is subjective. I can say in all reality that I interpret louder as not better, but just louder. I also say that there are differences between 3 different manufacturers AVRs. This is reality. I will agree that it may be possible to make all 3 AVRs sound alike but the way it is done will distinguish one from the other ie...they will sound different. I mean, 10 watts at 20% THD will sound different than 10 watts at .05% THD. The 10 watts with 20% THD will sound louder than the 10 watts with .05% THD, but I won't perceive tha 10w/20% as being better, only louder and actually, worse.

what sound you like is subjective, sound itself is 100% accurately measured and its not subjective.

As for your example on THD, have you read Toole's or Gedde's papers on distortion. Your generalizing above and you might want to read about the audibility of distortion in the lower frequencies.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 168
5/5/10 at 7:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

hd_newbie...seriously...Don't you EVER tell me or anyone else how to feel or interpret something again. You don't know squat but want 'numbers' and 'scientific fact' to tell me otherwise.

rto...they sound different because they are interpreted differently by different people. See a pattern starting to emerge here?

I didn't tell you how to interpret something, but I told how your brain interprets the differences in volume. There is a salient difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denophile View Post

well can you post something relevant because one is junk and the other is about amps and presents no data or conclusions. i see nothing about avrs or processors so unless someone posts otherwise we are in a data free zone.

What makes it a "junk"? What problems did you discover in their testing methodology? There are lots of other data by the way. You can google Dan Shanefield and/or Carver test and see what they have done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

But as penngray has already established, DBTs are invalid

Penngray has not established such a thing. DBT is a methodology. It is accepted in many branches of science including medicine. I find it telling that their validity is not questioned in any other branch of science other than among audiophiles.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 168
5/5/10 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

Absolutely. Because no statistics, and no DBT can tell you what YOU hear. Audio is very subjective. I think that was mentioned once or twice in this thread already.

What sound anything generates is not subjective. It can be measured. What come out of that speaker, radio, the sound a baseball makes coming off of a bat, a jet engine, etc. does not change from person to person. The sound is inviolate. It is what it is. How you hear it is not subjective. We all hear exactly the same. The mechinism by which all human beings hear is exactly the same. Bill over there doesn't have any "new" parts in the hearing chain than you do. How much you hear of the sound being produced can vary depending on the size of your ears, angle of your ears, your postion relevant to what is making the sound, all of which can be measured for in the range of human hearing. How you interpret what you hear is subjective and easily influenced by just about anything including perception, point of view, prejudeces, expectations, beliefs, and a myriad other things. Any properly designed AVR, driven in spec, should and will produce no audible difference in sound from another properly designed AVR driven in spec. Excepting EQ, being driven out of spec, and tube gear. I didn't say they wouldn't measure different. I said there is no audible difference. As many have asked, repeatedly, if anybody has any evidence that suggests otherwise, other than, "my ears", post it for review. Many references have been posted to DBT's and ABX studies that support a point of view suggesting no audible differences exist. You may challange how these studies were done, but at least we have them, have posted them, and can reference them to support our position. We have not had any opportunity to look at any data, of any test, that supports any other position. Care to hazzard a guess as to why?
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 168
5/5/10 at 8:17am
If a tree fell in the middle of the forest and no one was around to hear it, would it make a sound..??
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 168
5/5/10 at 8:18am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom52 View Post

Depending on the speakers, in the case you pointed out (Klipsch) when you went to listen in the showroom were all the AVR's connected and calibrated to those same speakers? If not and I don't know, but I doubt it then yes you would be able to notice a difference, possibly a major difference. That's why in my post I stated that the only way to get what you want is to bring one home and connect with your speakers, then see if you do notice that big difference. Push 'em to the levels you like to listen with without causing distortion and see what each of those things will do. All of the AVR's you listened to are good choices, but you will not be able to find the "right" one for you until you bring it home, set it up correctly, and put all of them through their paces. Yes, your speakers will make the biggest difference, along with your room. I think you may find they sound closer together than you think if all of them are setup properly. The biggest difference between your choices will be the EQ programs they use. Audyssey,MCACC and YPAO are all different. Pick the one that sounds the best to you, with your speakers(not theirs) and its the keeper. This banter back and forth about the difference in sounds is only confusing a lot of members here and as I stated earlier would turn into a pi**ing match. All of choices IIRC have pre-outs and if they don't provide the power to your like add an amp later and then listen for any improvements. An Emotiva XPA3 is all you really need for the fronts and the AVR can do surround duty. Do this for yourself and if you do indeed hear a drastic difference between them you'll know the one you like best. Good luck and enjoy the hunt, hell it's half the fun of this crazy hobby.

Thanks and I understand and agree with your stance. It has been a fun last couple of weeks researching, although my wife wouldn't say so, she doesn't like all the receiver/speaker talk. Her input was pretty direct; this one looks nice and its not too hot - or something to that effect. A entry level any brand would probably be adequate, as my Yamaha RX-V590 is seriously lacking (I looked up the specs).

I just read a few threads in other forums wherein the member swear the Emotiva XPA3 drastically improved their sound quality, even some of their wives heard the difference as well... That is within their own home, by just adding the amp. I agree with their assessments.

So, I think I have convinced myself to go the separates route, with an external amp. Now I have to find the best equipped low cost receiver

(The below is not directed at anyone...)
I am one that leans on science (religion/evolution/etc), but sorry, when it come to sound there is room for subjectiveness. Think of it as two separate realms - science and perception (ones own reality). Science can test and measures sound in a vacuum and publishes the results (which are then interpreted through perception - like statistics, they can be presented to prove your own argument, i.e. like in court, same evidence proves both innocence and guilt).

Reality is tested by the individual tester (listener). Case in point, I can not hear some high sound levels (part deaf from years of chain saws/guns/explosions/etc.), but the sounds I can hear, I hear very well. You know, lose your vision, hearing improves; well, I lost some hearing, so whats left is improved in some areas (call it B.S. if you want - my reality). The point is, what I hear is not what you hear, and definitely not what my wife hears. Thus, sound is subjective; and kind of pointless to bicker like you kids are - state your argument, support it, and move on.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 168
5/5/10 at 8:30am
Then the Yamaha 665/765 will do what you want. Its the one the two of you seemed to like the best. Either of these and the XPA3 will work out fine. You may also want to consider the Emotiva UPA5/7 along with those. There, more confusion. Now this thread will turn to "will you hear a difference between the XPA3 and the UPA's". And more bickering will start for your thread.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 168
5/5/10 at 8:40am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom52 View Post

Then the Yamaha 665/765 will do what you want. Its the one the two of you seemed to like the best. Either of these and the XPA3 will work out fine. You may also want to consider the Emotiva UPA5/7 along with those. There, more confusion. Now this thread will turn to "will you hear a difference between the XPA3 and the UPA's". And more bickering will start for your thread.

Regardless, I will do some basic research on external amps, and then find value for dollar. I am searching for an expensive HT on a budget (so far, $1500 worth of speakers MSRP for $598)
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 168
5/5/10 at 8:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rto View Post

... while the Scientific data to which we have access is insufficient in breadth and depth to be definitive, it's certainly more objectively persuasive than a slew of anecdotal audiophile opinions/subjective reviews.

That's clear to you, I think, because you understand the scientific approach of research methods. As best I can tell, some people don't understand this in a fundamental way, and a simple, irrefutable statement such as yours will never register. (But that itself would be a worthy topic for research.)

The irony of anecdotal opinions (which amount to "trust your ears" in this context) is that such views have long-since been proven as utterly unreliable in regard to a vast range of subject matter. Strange as it sounds at face value, the fact is that you can't trust your ears (or your eyes, nose, touch or taste) without controls in place. This has been demonstrated over and over and over, and it's not a matter for dispute.

Maybe I "get" this because I have a master of science degree, I dunno. But I do know this: In my final MIS research project, I had to cite everything I claimed (and I mean every last thing) relative to empirical, peer-reviewed research or new primary data. Statements tantamount to "trust your ears" would not only have been embarrassing to me personally, they would have gotten me laughed out of the program.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 168
5/5/10 at 9:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

If a tree fell in the middle of the forest and no one was around to hear it, would it make a sound..??

According to probability theory, the tree doesn't exist until somebody actually looks at it, so no.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 168
5/5/10 at 9:15am
Maxjean,

This is a popular route to go with improvements that a dedicated amp will give you. I thought of a couple of pointers for this route beginning with the speakers. Use their wattage rating as a general guide for amp power. Overpowering speakers will not harm them as easily as underpowering them, so if they have a 100 watt rating you would be safe up to 150 per channel amp, but you wouldn't need 200 watts probably.

As for the pre amp processor, they are mostly pretty costly, and I would concur with others suggesting using a receiver to drive the amp. You will want to create a short list of receivers that can do this and they need 7.1 pre-outs to run the amp. The above poster mentioned a Yamaha that can do this, I'll ad the Onkyo model you mentioned at first, the 707, which also has these pre-outs. Heat wouldn't be as much a concern if you are not using it directly to drive the speakers.

As for an amp, do you have 5 or 7 speakers(not including the sub which should have its own amp)? You will want an amp with as many channels. If you have 5 and may want to upgrade to 7 down the road, you might buy a 7 channel amp now. At any rate, most people around here that are familiar with the brand Emotiva agree that it gives you the best bang for buck of any company. For instance, their 5 channel UPA-5 (125 watts per) goes for 549, and comes with a 5 yr warranty.

Anyway, happy hunting!
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 168
5/5/10 at 9:17am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Brownstone View Post

That's clear to you, I think, because you understand the scientific approach of research methods. As best I can tell, some people don't understand this in a fundamental way, and a simple, irrefutable statement such as yours will never register. (But that itself would be a worthy topic for research.)

The irony of anecdotal opinions (which amount to "trust your ears" in this context) is that such views have long-since been proven as utterly unreliable in regard to a vast range of subject matter. The fact is, strange as it sounds at face value, that you can't trust your ears, eyes, nose, touch or taste without controls in place. This has been demonstrated over and over and over, and it's not a matter for dispute.

Maybe I "get" this because I have a master of science degree, I dunno. But I know this: In my final MIS research project, I had to cite everything I claimed (and I mean every last thing) relative to peer-reviewed research or new primary data. Statements tantamount to "trust your ears" would not only have been embarrassing to me personally, they would have gotten me laughed out of the program.


"Trust your ears" in your paper would have been worded differently and cited as your opinion, based on other cited/documented work. i.e. according to blah blah, the sound was measured at yadda yadda, however in my test, it pierced my ears and was uncomfortable to listen to at that level.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 168
5/5/10 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjean View Post

Regardless, I will do some basic research on external amps, and then find value for dollar. I am searching for an expensive HT on a budget (so far, $1500 worth of speakers MSRP for $598)

IMO, going separates is a good move, though it normally tends to be a more expensive route, because at the very least, you're paying for an additional housing.....but separate amps also generally tend to be designed with fewer compromises to meet a particular price-point, more capacitance, etc.

Going forward, you won't be forced to purchase a new power section, if (for example) you simply want to upgrade switching capacity, so it allows for significantly more flexibility.
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 168
5/5/10 at 9:29am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin' View Post

Maxjean,

This is a popular route to go with improvements that a dedicated amp will give you. I thought of a couple of pointers for this route beginning with the speakers. Use their wattage rating as a general guide for amp power. Overpowering speakers will not harm them as easily as underpowering them, so if they have a 100 watt rating you would be safe up to 150 per channel amp, but you wouldn't need 200 watts probably.

As for the pre amp processor, they are mostly pretty costly, and I would concur with others suggesting using a receiver to drive the amp. You will want to create a short list of receivers that can do this and they need 7.1 pre-outs to run the amp. The above poster mentioned a Yamaha that can do this, I'll ad the Onkyo model you mentioned at first, the 707, which also has these pre-outs. Heat wouldn't be as much a concern if you are not using it directly to drive the speakers.

As for an amp, do you have 5 or 7 speakers(not including the sub which should have its own amp)? You will want an amp with as many channels. If you have 5 and may want to upgrade to 7 down the road, you might buy a 7 channel amp now. At any rate, most people around here that are familiar with the brand Emotiva agree that it gives you the best bang for buck of any company. For instance, their 5 channel UPA-5 (125 watts per) goes for 549, and comes with a 5 yr warranty.

Anyway, happy hunting!

Thanks for the pointers...

I will only go with a three channel for the L/C/R, as the AVR should be capable of driving the surrounds (not decided upon yet) and the sub will be powered (not decided upon yet).

The major concern are my front 3, which are 4ohms. The manual states:

"We recommend an amplifier with 100 watts per
channel for most applications. Probably less would
be adequate when used in home theater where a
subwoofer is employed. Our hybrid designs will
perform well with either a tube or transistorized amplifier,
and will reveal the sonic character of either type.
However, it is important that the amplifier be stable
operating into varying impedance loads: a stable
amplifier will be able to deliver twice its rated wattage
into 4 Ohms and should again double into 2 Ohms."

What external amp can do that, huh, huh?
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 168
5/5/10 at 9:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjean View Post


"We recommend an amplifier with 100 watts per
channel for most applications. Probably less would
be adequate when used in home theater where a
subwoofer is employed. Our hybrid designs will
perform well with either a tube or transistorized amplifier,
and will reveal the sonic character of either type.
However, it is important that the amplifier be stable
operating into varying impedance loads: a stable
amplifier will be able to deliver twice its rated wattage
into 4 Ohms and should again double into 2 Ohms."

What external amp can do that, huh, huh?

I just looked at the Emotive site:

UPA-5 Five Channel Audio Power Amplifier (no UPA-3??)
125 watts RMS x 5 into 8 ohms | 185 watts RMS x 5 into 4 ohms

XPA-3 Three Channel Audio Power Amplifier
200 watts RMS x 3 into 8 ohms | 300 watts RMS x 3 into 4 ohms

I need 100 watts x 3 into 4ohms (I think), these all seem too powerful?
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 168
5/5/10 at 9:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjean View Post

"Trust your ears" in your paper would have been worded differently and cited as your opinion, based on other cited/documented work. i.e. according to blah blah, the sound was measured at yadda yadda, however in my test, it pierced my ears and was uncomfortable to listen to at that level.

He wouldn't have been a test-subject in his own study, so his individual opinion would have been completely irrelevant and therefore, unmentionable.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 168
5/5/10 at 10:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rto View Post

He wouldn't have been a test-subject in his own study, so his individual opinion would have been completely irrelevant and therefore, unmentionable.

Maxjean has decided (and perfectly within his right to do so) that despite his "scientific" nature, in the case of AV, he is going to throw it out the window and make a decision to believe that it is all subjective. Doesn't really matter as anything he is likely to pick will work wonderfully. Can't go wrong with seperates! May be overkill, may not be. May cost more, may not. In the end it will work, he will love the sound (as long as he loves the sound of his speakers) and he will be happy.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 168
5/5/10 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjean View Post

I just looked at the Emotive site:

UPA-5 Five Channel Audio Power Amplifier (no UPA-3??)
125 watts RMS x 5 into 8 ohms | 185 watts RMS x 5 into 4 ohms

XPA-3 Three Channel Audio Power Amplifier
200 watts RMS x 3 into 8 ohms | 300 watts RMS x 3 into 4 ohms

I need 100 watts x 3 into 4ohms (I think), these all seem too powerful?

None of them will be too powerful for your speakers. They are not driving that amount of power all the time. You are good to go with either.
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 168
5/5/10 at 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjean View Post

I just looked at the Emotive site:

UPA-5 Five Channel Audio Power Amplifier (no UPA-3??)
125 watts RMS x 5 into 8 ohms | 185 watts RMS x 5 into 4 ohms

XPA-3 Three Channel Audio Power Amplifier
200 watts RMS x 3 into 8 ohms | 300 watts RMS x 3 into 4 ohms

I need 100 watts x 3 into 4ohms (I think), these all seem too powerful?

You can have more power than your speakers are rated for within reason (I would not use a 200 Watt amp with 50 Watt speakers, probably.)

You won't run at 100 Watt continuous. That would be VERY loud. You need enough power for peaks though. A rough rule is that peaks will be 20 dB over average level for movies. That means that PEAK power is 100 times average power. It's average level you need to worry about with speakers, as they can overheat if you push too much power through them. Usually speakers blow due to blatant abuse.

People will say that too little power blows speakers. Technically this is wrong. What they mean is that insufficient power can lead to clipping, and clipping can damage speakers. The reason for clipping damaging speakers is that the average levels will be higher under clipping conditions. Higher power = more heat = potential for speaker damage. Speakers are HORRIBLY inefficient. Most of the power you send them becomes heat.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 168
5/5/10 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lhasa-lover View Post

According to probability theory, the tree doesn't exist until somebody actually looks at it, so no.

A set of ears must be available, IOW.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 168
5/5/10 at 10:46am
Not too powerful. Just right.

Mr. Brownstone et all...Your scientific 'facts' are all good and I am not disputing the information garnered from such research. But y'all keep repeating that these tests are conducted via controlled environments. Unfortunately, the major factor you consistently neglect is that a home environment rarely, if ever, is a scientifically controlled environment. A persons ears will not let the person down since the person knows what they find pleasing. What sounds good to you may sound like crap to another and vice versa. THAT is the reality. It does not matter if the person knows what to listen for, they know what they like and like it or not, AVRs sound different from each other.

I am fully aware of how tests are evaluated, and how that information applies. But while you continue to spout that scientific, non applicable to this discussion numbers, folks around the world are listening and buying equipment that sounds good to them. If all things were equal, there would be no need for forums like this, no need for listening tests, no need for 'in home demos'.

Case in point (of course y'all will bash the hell out of me because I have not posted a link to my findings ) when I bought my Denon AVR-789 and brought it home, connected and calibrated everything to the same specs as my Onkyo TX-DS595, and the Denon sounded differently (better) with the same speakers, using the same demo material passage, in the same room (my "controlled environment"). I heard the difference, my wife heard the difference (and she was in a different room while this was going on) and all because THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE. A difference that was HEARD and not measured.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 168
5/5/10 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dongled View Post

You and your ilk seem to think that those that challenge scientific data are rejecting it. A false assumption, and deeming those that question some findings as neophytes or somehow not sophisticated enough to have considered the esteemed results of some DBT performed in the past does not validate certain attempts to establish said findings as audio law.

How are you challenging scientific data? So far I've only seen people "challenging" it by repeatedly saying "it's not true" without presenting any evidence. Yes, your taste in sound is subjective, and I suggest relying on EQs to control the sound to your likings, not brand perception. The perception that Marantz is more "musical", Onkyo is bright etc is nonsense, and will not help you find the sound that you so subjectively like.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 168
5/5/10 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjean View Post

"Trust your ears" in your paper would have been worded differently and cited as your opinion, based on other cited/documented work. i.e. according to blah blah, the sound was measured at yadda yadda, however in my test, it pierced my ears and was uncomfortable to listen to at that level.

A researcher (not that I'm a professional one) isn't a participant in his own study. Not a chance one could write anything like that and submit it for peer review or anything else.

To be fair, though, a scientific study often concludes with a "Topics for Further Research" section, and an empirical data set that is especially out of line with subjective observations might present new questions: Why are they so different? And how do we assess "qualitative" observations versus "quanitative" data? But even then, the empirical results are the starting point, not the other way around. This is how the "placebo effect" was identified to begin with.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 168
5/5/10 at 11:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

.. A persons ears will not let the person down since the person knows what they find pleasing. What sounds good to you may sound like crap to another and vice versa. THAT is the reality. It does not matter if the person knows what to listen for, they know what they like and like it or not, AVRs sound different from each other.

People ears/brains let them down constantly in the world of audio.

Heck, most people do not have a clue how to actually listen (research Harman and listening training). Most people have no idea what accuracy sounds like and most actually think the sound of BOSE is good so where does that leave us?

Its been proven over and over that different SPL levels convince people there is different SQ.

Its been proven over and over that if a person stands even several inches off during each listening test they could hear something difference.

Its been proven over and over that most people do not recognize clipping/distortion/speaker compression at higher SPLs since they have no reference point of high quality designs.

There is a huge list of true requirements needed when doing listening tests.

If its too hard to do then people should stop bothering to worry about the best audio

Im actually not telling anyone what to buy or what they should like Im going to simply inform people daily on here that there is a mount of evidence that supports audio science, audio measurements and there is a huge problem with giving anyone the simplistic opinion of "Just use your ears".

When someone produces the same amount of data proving "Just use your ears" as a valid technique then we can have a discussion until then its a one sided arguement like I have with my 3 year old daughter when asking her not to do something and getting the same reply over and over "but daddy, I want to do it"


The OP posted a very subjective conclusion, many on here can explain why it happened. He can choose to ignore all the facts or he can learn all about them. Its 100% his choice.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 168
5/5/10 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lhasa-lover View Post

Maxjean has decided (and perfectly within his right to do so) that despite his "scientific" nature, in the case of AV, he is going to throw it out the window and make a decision to believe that it is all subjective. Doesn't really matter as anything he is likely to pick will work wonderfully. Can't go wrong with seperates! May be overkill, may not be. May cost more, may not. In the end it will work, he will love the sound (as long as he loves the sound of his speakers) and he will be happy.

I think you're almost certainly correct. Almost any decent, mid-line, multi-channel audio system is beyond anything we dreamed about 30 years ago.....but I reject the notion that anyone with a truly Scientific nature would ever "throw it out the window."
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 168
5/5/10 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxjean View Post

Thanks for the pointers...

I will only go with a three channel for the L/C/R, as the AVR should be capable of driving the surrounds (not decided upon yet) and the sub will be powered (not decided upon yet).

The major concern are my front 3, which are 4ohms. The manual states:

"We recommend an amplifier with 100 watts per
channel for most applications. Probably less would
be adequate when used in home theater where a
subwoofer is employed. Our hybrid designs will
perform well with either a tube or transistorized amplifier,
and will reveal the sonic character of either type.
However, it is important that the amplifier be stable
operating into varying impedance loads: a stable
amplifier will be able to deliver twice its rated wattage
into 4 Ohms and should again double into 2 Ohms."

What external amp can do that, huh, huh?

What speakers are these again?

Before we get into spending big $$$ for separates we should consider the setup involved.

No way would I spend more on electronics then my set of speakers. In fact for me a good ratio is 3 to 1....speakers, room design treatments should cost 3 times more then all electronics involved.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › AVR Sound Comparison